Nadal and Djokovic would not have survived the 80's and 90's - Becker

[Tennis_Hands]

I understand what Becker was saying. The point is, even if you were rubbish at dealing with serve and volley players in the 1980s and 1990s, you could make a strong career on tour. Look at Thomas Muster, and he did it after severed ligaments in his knee.

But the point, that Becker is trying to make is not, whether they would have good careers. I am sure, that he is well aware, that even with his RG titles Nadal would be considered as one of the Greats. So it must be something else.

What could it be?

 

[dimeaxe]

I remember how many big points these s/v players have lost rushing to the net, and not trying to construct one point from the baseline.I remember them doing that in situations even if it didn't have any sense.I understand people who don't like endless baseline game, but on the others hand it's a great way to disturb other player's rhythm on his service game.If you jerk him around the court, it's a great possibility that's he's going to miss some first serves, it's even more effective against big guys.

 

[beast of mallorca]

Becker is just being a sour puss because Rafa has eclipsed his accomplishments and Djoker is on his way to do the same. Nobody here knows, whether you are a pro player has been or not, how Rafa or Djoker would have fared in the 70s, 80s, 90s.

Who's here to say how each one would have adapted to a specific era to dominate like they did. Everything here are mere speculations which are all dependent on our respective bias and allegiance because nobody here will ever know. Just My 2 cents.

 

[NadalDramaQueen]

Becker is just being a sour puss because Rafa has eclipsed his accomplishments and Djoker is on his way to do the same. Nobody here knows, whether you are a pro player has been or not, how Rafa or Djoker would have fared in the 70s, 80s, 90s.

Who's here to say how each one would have adapted to a specific era to dominate like they did. Everything here are mere speculations which are all dependent on our respective bias and allegiance because nobody here will ever know. Just My 2 cents.

True, but Becker only wanted to watch all the ****s have a go at one another on TT. Mission accomplished.

 

[dimeaxe]

I remember Federer once said, that every great player of any era, would be great in any other era

 

[Tennis_Hands]

I remember how many big points these s/v players have lost rushing to the net, and not trying to construct one point from the baseline.I remember them doing that in situations even if it didn't have any sense.I understand people who don't like endless baseline game, but on the others hand it's a great way to disturb other player's rhythm on his service game.If you jerk him around the court, it's a great possibility that's he's going to miss some first serves, it's even more effective against big guys.

The whole point, that the proponents of the return of the fast surfaces are making is, that a balance between slow, medium and fast/ultrafast surfaces should be struck, so that the coaches and younger players are stimulated, to develop a multifaceted games and a variety of styles.

It was never an intention to create a Tour, dominated solely by fast surfaces or S&V tennis, as some people here are implying.

 

[NadalDramaQueen]

I remember Federer once said, that every great player of any era, would be great in any other era

In a later interview he excluded Djokovic from that statement though.

 

[gplracer]

A lot of this is luck of the draw. If a player has the game style that is suited to the court, conditions, string technology, and game style. I do not think that Nadal would have done as well in the 80's because the string technology was different and the speed of the surface and the balls were different. Hence I think Agassi would have done better today. They are all great players it is just lucky as to all of these factors when they are in their prime.

 

[beast of mallorca]

True, but Becker only wanted to watch all the ****s have a go at one another on TT. Mission accomplished.

Hahaha, so true...............TW is the center of the Tennis Universe :twisted:

 

[nethawkwenatchee]

A guy like Raonic may have been a standout in the 80'-90's fast court era

 

[dimeaxe]

The whole point, that the proponents of the return of the fast surfaces are making is, that a balance between slow, medium and fast/ultrafast surfaces should be struck, so that the coaches and younger players are stimulated, to develop a multifaceted games and a variety of styles.

It was never an intention to create a Tour, dominated solely by fast surfaces or S&V tennis, as some people here are implying.

I'm supporting this whole idea, for sake of tennis, and to prevent injuries, but i said in another post that's a hypocritical statement from Roger to do this and man himself has greatly benefited from removing fast carpet and this whole process...I mean after 17 GS and many other records, very smart from Roger to say that.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

I'm supporting this whole idea, for sake of tennis, and to prevent injuries, but i said in another post that's a hypocritical statement from Roger to do this and man himself has greatly benefited from removing fast carpet and this whole process...I mean after 17 GS and many other records, very smart from Roger to say that.

Federer can play on fast and ultrafast surfaces. He has proven it. So, it is a speculation, that he has benefited from the slowing of the surfaces, that only cannot be immediately refuted only because of the fact, that he hasn't played enough on such surfaces.

Also, it is important to be understood, that he is not doing this for himself. His career will be finished in 3-4 years from now. The current speeds were acheived within 5-6 years. It may very well not be also for Djokovic, Nadal etc.

One more thing. I believe, that Federer is thinking about the future of the game. What we have now shortens careers or even destroys them, before they even start. Grindfests are detrimental to the young tennis players and at the moment the surfaces allow exactly that.

 

[sonicare]

Mustad peddling his BS as usual.

The only 2 players from the open era who IMO would have no problems adapting to any court/conditions are borg and federer.

And you know this, how? Do you have a ****IS or DeLorean as well? It's funny how many seem to be lying around for TT members to use

Read the second sentence I wrote again. I said, IMO aka in my opinion.

As for the statement about you peddling your BS, that is a verifiable fact. Any body can click here:

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/search.php?do=finduser&u=66630

and feel free to read all the stunning amount of BS you have posted over the years.

 

[Mustard]

Read the second sentence I wrote again. I said, IMO aka in my opinion.

Yes, I know what IMO means, thanks. I've made my point that I believe that Nadal would have "survived" on tour in the 1980s and 1990s, so if you think that's "BS", then that's your affair.

 

[timnz]

Indoors

You are right, Nadal would have been able to do well on clay courts. However in the 90s and especially the 80's indoor tennis was a big part of the game. I don't think nadal would have coped with that. You had Philadelphia, Stockholm, Wembley, tokyo, paris indoors, sydney indoor, Milan, wct finals (1980s), grand slam cup (1990s) and of course the season end finals. Oudoor hard courts were faster too like the australian open from 1988 onwards (compared to todays ultra slow court)

 

[Dark Victory]

Federer would stil be dominant even if he played in the 90's.

He'd probably have a little less than 17, but he'd still lead in the Slam count.

His main roadblock would be Sampras obviously, but even at his peak Pete never had the consistency to rack up single-digit loss seasons or 90-95% annual winning percentages. His game didn't really allow for that kind of sustained dominance. But Roger's game does.

He'd probably win less Wimbledons because of Sampras, but he'd probably compensate for that by winning more than 1 FO (assuming prime Rafa also didn't get wormholed back to 90's) and more AO's.

I've also a suspicion his game would've been even BETTER if he developed in the 90's. We saw a glimpse of that in 2005 version of Fed, where he already had that superior baseline game but could STILL S&V. 90's Fed would've developed a SUPERB net game to compliment his dominant backcourt game.

 

[TheFifthSet]

But instead of being a dominant baseliner today, Federer would be a dominant s/v player, as he would adapt to the different environment. Of course converting to a dominant s/v, he would give up some his baseline prowess, there's a give and take.

In today's era, a great baseliner would be a slam winners. Being a s/v player is dead meat. But in the 90s, great s/v players AND great baseliners both can win multiple slams. So with more option to play with, this gives Roger better chance because he's a versatile player. He can win as a baseliner or a s/v player, or a combination of both. Players in the 90s doesn't have his versatility. Unlike today, it's impossible to win slam playing s/v, regardless of his versatility. I think variety(mixture of s/v and baseline game) works to his advantage.

How do you know that? I'm not saying he wouldn't, but saying he would have a "field day" with s&v'ers/big servers with all-around games such as Sampras, Becker, Rafter, Ivanisevic, Krajicek, Stich on fast surfaces is ridiculous. He would have it very tough.

Federers serve AND volley/net game is inferior to Sampras, who was a natural. What proof do you have that Federer would be a dominant serve and volleyer?

Again, he MIGHT have been but its all speculation.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

How do you know that? I'm not saying he wouldn't, but saying he would have a "field day" with s&v'ers/big servers with all-around games such as Sampras, Becker, Rafter, Ivanisevic, Krajicek, Stich on fast surfaces is ridiculous. He would have it very tough.

Federers serve AND volley/net game is inferior to Sampras, who was a natural. What proof do you have that Federer would be a dominant serve and volleyer?

Again, he MIGHT have been but its all speculation.

Well, he beat Sampras while S&Ving.

He also won his age group in Singles and in Doubles at Wimbledon.

We could safely assume, that he wouldn't have been too bad at it, couldn't we?

 

[PSNELKE]

Laver,Budge,Gonzales,Hoad,Borg,Connors,Lendl are others too

Exactly. Don't forget William and Ernest Renshaw, Herbert Lawford, Lawrence and Reginald Doherty, Richard Sears, Bill Tilden and several dinosaurs.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Exactly. Don't forget William and Ernest Renshaw, Herbert Lawford, Lawrence and Reginald Doherty, Richard Sears, Bill Tilden and several dinosaurs.

Star.

5stars.

 

[TheFifthSet]

Well, he beat Sampras while S&Ving.

He also won his age group in Singles and in Doubles at Wimbledon.

We could safely assume, that he wouldn't have been too bad at it, couldn't we?

How about some context? Duh he would be pretty good at it. He's pretty great from anywhere on the court. But TMF said he would have "a field day", which is absurd. Federer has done little to prove he would be a dominant serve and volleyer (granted he hasn't exactly been given the chance to, but still).

 

[sonicare]

Well, he beat Sampras while S&Ving.

He also won his age group in Singles and in Doubles at Wimbledon.

We could safely assume, that he wouldn't have been too bad at it, couldn't we?

he won his first wimby s + v ing too

Like I said earlier, the only 2 guys in the open era which we can pretty much gaurantee can play in any era are Borg and federer for obvious reasons.

And all those novices who claim nadal would adjust...***** please. nadal's movement going forward is actually very mediocre probably due to his dodgy ankle that hinders him since 2005. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that nadal could be a great serve and volleyer.

nadal was groomed to be a spanish dirtballer and he is great at that. it is just that luck was on his side and he found himself on slow grass and slow hard courts.

 

[coloskier]

Becker would be destroyed by Novak in any conditions, he's not really the smartest man in the world, better for him to shut up.

With 80's rackets, strings, and court speed, I highly doubt it. Novak for one could not hit that kind of spin with 80's equipment, loves a high bouncing ball, which there were none. Avoids the net unless he has a gimme, etc.etc.

 

[Paullaconte1]

I dunno if Becker would have survived this era as well...

 

[sportsfan1]

Becker may be right, or maybe he isn't. But as a 7 time slam champion, he knows what it takes to win these things, so we should be less dismissive of his opinion ;-)

 

[Disgruntled Worker]

Different technology, different game. One could make the exact same statement about Becker playing in today's conditions.

 

[Murrayfan31]

Boris Becker says some of the most ridiculous things. Great players never turn out to be great analysts it seems.

 

[RF20Lennon]

Its like Pete Sampras wouldnt do too well in this era same way nads and Djoko wouldnt do too well back then. Simple as that. People here are taking it to 2 extremes. 1. Djokovic and Rafa would still win everything they have now, they are amazing everhwere. 2. The only reason for their success is so slow if they played back then they wouldnt win a single match.

 

[corners]

Becker was my idol as a kid, but I don't think he's thinking very clearly here.

Three names: Borg, Lendl, Agassi

All three of these great baseliners kicked ass and took names in serve & volley eras. If Borg could win Wimbledon against McEnroe, so could Nadal. If Lendl could take out Becker so could Djokovic. If Agassi could beat Sampras (occasionally ) then there's no reason Nadal or Djoker couldn't as well.

And as far as Fed is concerned, not only would he have held his own, he would have been top dog in any era, IMHO. But, it would have been very interesting to see him match up against Becker, Stich, Edgerg, Sampras et al. Very fun too. But to think he would have won fewer slams in the 90s than he did in the 2000s is a big reach. We'll never know, but I don't think Boris would have been very happy with Roger across the net.

 

[RF20Lennon]

Becker was my idol as a kid, but I don't think he's thinking very clearly here.

Three names: Borg, Lendl, Agassi

All three of these great baseliners kicked ass and took names in serve & volley eras. If Borg could win Wimbledon against McEnroe, so could Nadal. If Lendl could take out Becker so could Djokovic. If Agassi could beat Sampras (occasionally ) then there's no reason Nadal or Djoker couldn't as well.

And as far as Fed is concerned, not only would he have held his own, he would have been top dog in any era, IMHO. But, it would have been very interesting to see him match up against Becker, Stich, Edgerg, Sampras et al. Very fun too. But to think he would have won fewer slams in the 90s than he did in the 2000s is a big reach. We'll never know, but I don't think Boris would have been very happy with Roger across the net.

Borg S@V a lot in wimby!! that being said I dont see why cant either

 

[BeHappy]

Djoker can play on anything, very similar player to Borg.

Nadal cannot play on fast courts. He's one of my favourite players but we all know it's true.

Actually, in the 80's, indoor courts could be quite slow, Madison Square Garden's year ending World Championships in particular were pretty slow.

 

[Tony48]

Djokovic and Nadal were BORN into a different era of tennis. I'm sure that if they were born in the 80s and 90s era, they would have been just fine.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

How about some context? Duh he would be pretty good at it. He's pretty great from anywhere on the court. But TMF said he would have "a field day", which is absurd. Federer has done little to prove he would be a dominant serve and volleyer (granted he hasn't exactly been given the chance to, but still).

He has done enough to safely assume that. Sonicare is right. I just wanted to point out, that even at a VERY early age (before Federer was Federer), Federer has shown, that he has it in him (for those, who say, that it isn't natural),

The way I see it, he would have developed the same skillset, that he has now, plus more pronounced volleying skills (which he would have continued to develop).

It is a scary thought to think of such version of Federer.

 

[beast of mallorca]

He has done enough to safely assume that. Sonicare is right. I just wanted to point out, that even at a VERY early age (before Federer was Federer), Federer has shown, that he has it in him (for those, who say, that it isn't natural),

The way I see it, he would have developed the same skillset, that he has now, plus more pronounced volleying skills (which he would have continued to develop).

It is a scary thought to think of such version of Federer.[/QUOTE]

Hahaha, you are such a fangirl. Stop over acting.

 

[Deleted member 369227]

BS. If time machine exists, any today's top athlete would have beat any top athlete from 20 years ago, in any sport, not only tennis. Sad but true.

 

[kiki]

Exactly. Don't forget William and Ernest Renshaw, Herbert Lawford, Lawrence and Reginald Doherty, Richard Sears, Bill Tilden and several dinosaurs.

With appropiate equipment and some adjusting time, those I mentioned had the patterns to bright in the current era.

While just Federer would win consistently in the 70´s and 80´s if modern players did play under 70´s conditions.

 

[zagor]

Brace yourself. Couch warriors here at TT are way more qualified about this subject than silly Boris Becker. Vamos.

No, they're not more qualified but being a great tennis player doesn't make one an absolute authority in all things regarding tennis, I've seen tennis greats make some downright idiotic statements at times, change their opinion almost weekly (think McEnroe) and suck terribly at predicting an outcome of the match (say Wilander and Gilbert).

Look at this example, Becker basically says Nadal would have sucked (would not have survived) in the so called "serve and volley" era yet McEnroe (an even greater player!) says Nadal has the best volley on tour? So which one of this qualified experts is right on the topic?

Furthemore I personally wouldn't call even the 80's the era "of serve and volley", arguably the best player of that era is Lendl and while his all-court abilities/talent is underrated he was definitely not a serve and volleyer, let alone the 90's where you had 2 slams in which baseline play had the edge over serve and volley (AO and FO), the 3d where both playing styles were equally viable (USO) with Wimbledon being the sole bastion of serve and volley tennis.

 

[Huanita99]

Novak would simply destroy that field, Rafa too. movement of death. very simple.

 

[Mick]

Becker said he didn't think Nadal or Djokovic "would have been so successful" but the OP changed that to "would have survived" and put Becker name to it :shock:

 

[monfed]

Yea, Ralph would've been another Coria/Kuerten in the 80s for sure.

 

[tennis_pro]

Djokovic and Nadal were BORN into a different era of tennis. I'm sure that if they were born in the 80s and 90s era, they would have been just fine.

Thank you very much - Djokovic and Nadal do what they have to do to win, same goes for Sampras, Becker et all in the 80's/90's.

/thread

 

[helloworld]

Tennis players are products from their own respective era. With that said, great champions will be great in any era, so Nadal and Djokovic playing in the 80s would have a totally different game from what they are playing now.

 

[Deleted member 3771]

Fed was very inconsistent pre poly. They all wouldn't be as successful if they all had to play in the 90's without poly.

 

[namelessone]

Tennis players are products from their own respective era. With that said, great champions will be great in any era, so Nadal and Djokovic playing in the 80s would have a totally different game from what they are playing now.

This is the one thing people either don't get or don't want to get.

Players are products of their era. Even Federer, who was playing S&V in his first major WB outings, has cut it out for the most part and stuck to baseline rallies. Edberg, THE S&V er, said that if he played in today's era he would mostly stay back.

Both Nadal and Djokovic said that they really wanted to win WB. In this era, they had it easier with the bigger ball bouce so that they didn't have to make major changes in their baseline game but if they were born earlier on they would've probably adopted a different style to try and win on most surfaces(or at least for the big titles).

Obviously, no matter what era you're in, you're gonna lean one way or another but I don't know why people automatically assume that today's defensive players would've automatically been so in the past as well. Nadal was very offensive in his early teens(with a Gonzalez like forehand at times), Djokovic was much more aggressive circa 2008, Murray has his moments of offensive brilliance. It's just that 7-8 years ago, most tourneys started following WB's example and slowed down their courts so most players starting taking note and dialed down their offense.

I mean, even Federer is less agressive than he used to be in his peak and it's no coincidence that all top 5 guys are tremendous defenders(yes, even Federer).

What Becker said is very relative. I could just as easily say that the big S&V'er Becker would be eaten alive in today's tennis but that wouldn't be fair nor true.

 

[90's Clay]

Fed was very inconsistent pre poly. They all wouldn't be as successful if they all had to play in the 90's without poly.

Agreed here. Fed was extremely inconsistent during the pre-poly era and very error prone. While he also would probably have the best shot at success in the 90s out of the top 4 guys, he also most likely wouldn't have the same amount of success as he had from 00s'-on either.

He would have to go for more and play more high risk tennis, thus meaning more errors.. He wouldn't just get to live at the baseline and get to get in his groove.. He wasn't the best server around, and his net game isn't the best either.

The French also played as slow as Monte Carlo just about in the 90s lets not forget. Which takes some of Fed's game away

 

[TMF]

Thank you very much - Djokovic and Nadal do what they have to do to win, same goes for Sampras, Becker et all in the 80's/90's.

/thread

If Nadal/Nole and Sampras/Becker were to swap era, I think Nadal/Nole would fare better chance. There were great baseliners during the serve/volley era. Agassi, Courier and especially Lendl were incredibly successful. So I think Nadal/Nole being a baseliner would still be formidable. However, Sampras/Becker would suffer if they stick to be an attacking player in this era, because serve and volley today wouldn't get you any further than just a journeyman. Basically, it's not a must for Nadal/Nole to convert into an attacking player in the 80s or 90s, but for an attacking player like Sampras/Becker they must fine tuned their game to be a great baseliner in order to be a grand slam champion.

 

[NadalDramaQueen]

Fed was very inconsistent pre poly. They all wouldn't be as successful if they all had to play in the 90's without poly.

Right, that had nothing to do with being a headcase when he was younger, it was only the lack of poly crosses. :roll:

 

[TMF]

Tennis players are products from their own respective era. With that said, great champions will be great in any era, so Nadal and Djokovic playing in the 80s would have a totally different game from what they are playing now.

Not necessary. There would be more chances for them to attack thus improve their net game, but they still can be a baseliner. Agassi strictly sticks behind the baseline and he had a great career, winning on fast court like Wimbledon, USO and Master Cup. And Agassi didn't have full commitment in the 90s. Since Nadal/Nole > Agassi, they would do just fine, and drastically reduce the level of domination from serve/volley players.

 

[Murrayfan31]

Yeah putting Nadal and Djokovic together in the same breath is insulting enough in itself.

 

[TMF]

Right, that had nothing to do with being a headcase when he was younger, it was only the lack of poly crosses. :roll:

And teenage, head case Federer was having problem against the baseliners(Nalbandian, Hewitt, Agassi), but was able to beat the serve/volley(Krajicek, Sampras, Ivanisevic).